... problem to be solved?" If we think a feature will improve retention, the uncertainty isn't "how should we implement it?" It's: "Is this actually the reason users aren't coming back?" That changes what I build next. Sometimes the answer is a feature. Sometimes

... change. A team might know its current workflow is slow or frustrating and still continue using it because it s familiar. The more useful question for us became: What changed recently that made solving this problem important now? Sometimes it s team growth. Sometimes

... handful of early Indian product teams right now mostly Series A/B consumer apps. One thing we're still figuring out: who actually drives this inside a company. We assumed PM, but it's turning out to be messier sometimes a founder, sometimes

... thing I ve been thinking about while building is that our real competitor often isn t another startup. It s the spreadsheet someone already has, the manual process that s good enough, the employee who s always handled it, a messy collection of tools, or increasingly, just opening ChatGPT and asking it to figure something out. So I thought it could be fun to turn that into a little product arena. Put your product in the arena: [Your product] [what ... ... people currently do instead] Then add one thing I m genuinely curious about: why does the other side still win sometimes

... poor engineering. It fails because it's answering the wrong question. Early on, I thought my job as a founder was to keep adding features. Now I spend much more time asking: "What problem is this feature actually solving?" Sometimes I realize the feature isn't the answer. It's my attempt to avoid having a difficult conversation with users. Building feels productive. Talking to customers feels uncomfortable. So it's tempting to build first. One conversation recently changed ... ... planned. Since then I've started asking myself one question before opening my editor: If I couldn't write any code today, how would I solve this customer's problem? Surprisingly, the answer often isn't another feature. Sometimes

... learned from it. And I get it. The pace of building today is honestly incredible, fast moving and what not? A feature that would've taken weeks a couple of years ago can now come together in a weekend. Sometimes even an afternoon. That's exciting :D But every now and then, I catch myself wondering... Are we getting better at building? Or are we just getting better at building faster ? Because those aren't the same thing ... ... solves the problem they actually have not the one we imagined they had. Lately, I've been trying to celebrate those moments a little more. Not when we ship. But when we learn something that changes how we think. Sometimes

... suddenly lose access to all AI. But what happens if , one day, access to the leading American models is restricted more broadly? We would still have European models, open-source systems we can operate ourselves, and Chinese alternatives. But there is no guarantee that another major power would never make the same decision to protect its own strategic advantage. AI is no longer just another software category. It is becoming infrastructure. It will shape education, healthcare, national security, research ... ... world are American, and Europe should continue working closely with the United States. But cooperation and dependency are not the same thing. Technological sovereignty does not mean refusing to use foreign technology. It means having a real alternative

... earlier in the process to argue with me. I'll describe an idea and ask it to play the most skeptical potential customer it can, or to list every reason the idea might already be a solved problem. Sometimes that surfaces a competitor

... someone who manages social media, I also have to manage what happens in the comments section. Sometimes it's constructive criticism. Other times it's pure hate. People often say that once your product starts becoming successful, more people notice it, and some will criticise it simply out of jealousy. This is my POV on how I handle that: On social media, we (or I) remove abusive or hateful comments immediately for two reasons: They can put your account ... ... This is garbage, it hung up on my mother" is rude and actionable. "Love the vision, excited to see where this goes!" is lovely and worth nothing. Second, the distinction that changed how we respond: hate at your product versus

... generate harmful responses. Compliance helps ensure it follows relevant policies and regulations. Governance helps answer questions about how it's being managed, monitored, and operated in production. The terms overlap, but they solve different problems. Mixing them together can sometimes make conversations more confusing than they need to be. Which of the three terms do you think gets misused the most? Comment from Riya Pariyar(@riya_pariyar): governance gets misused the most, and i think it's because ...

... nudges. "You haven't journaled today." "Your streak is at risk." The standard playbook. It worked. DAU went up. But something felt off. We started reading what users wrote on the days they came back because of a notification vs. the days they came on their own. The difference was stark. Notification-driven entries were short, surface-level, almost performative. "Today was fine." "Nothing much happened." They were checking a box, not processing their feelings. The organic entries -- the ones ... ... supposed to do -- it just wasn't doing it every day. We've since redesigned our entire engagement model. Instead of optimizing for daily returns, we optimize for what we call "meaningful returns" -- sessions where users actually engage deeply. Sometimes

... month that I've been here, I've been noticing a pattern in a lot of launches - strong demos, polished UI, clear outputs of "what it does." But when I ask myself "What problem does this solve?" I sometimes have to dig for the answer. (I come by that thinking honestly - I've spent 33 years building and fixing businesses, so this is the lens I can't turn off.) The products where the problem is obvious are the ones ... ... that's me." That is what I want to see as well. That said, I wonder if there's another layer to this. A launch isn't just for the people who already know they have the problem. Sometimes

... people unhappy with the AI's responses? Was the experience frustrating? We almost redesigned the flow to discourage deletion. Then one user told us something that changed everything: "I write things in Murror I can't say out loud. Sometimes writing it is enough. I don't need to keep it. I just needed to get it out." We started looking more closely and found a pattern. The deleted entries were consistently more emotionally raw, more honest, and more specific ... ... than the ones people kept. They were the entries where real processing happened. The kept entries were polished. Reflective. Written for a future self to read. The deleted ones were written for right now -- messy, unfiltered, sometimes

... like telegram more than the whatsapp for chatting :) VS Code : i do code . Comment from mono.(@shakutovbekzat): Here s my stack for building mobile apps today: Antigravity + Codex (AI Agent): Switched to this setup recently. Previously, VS

... notice: Your energy has been lower than usual for three days. Your workload signal is rising compared to your normal pattern. Your stress level seems to be changing this week. This gives the employee a private moment of awareness. Sometimes that is already enough to take action. They might decide to take a break, ask for help, adjust their workload, or start a conversation themselves. The goal is to give the person ownership before the situation becomes bigger. The trusted ... ... like another HR survey? Our goal is not to create another engagement dashboard. Our goal is to build a lightweight early-warning system for team wellbeing. Not to replace human conversations. But to make those conversations possible earlier. Because sometimes

... galdayan): our setup ended up being a Slack webhook per agent session, posted to a channel only that agent writes to. sounds basic but the key part was making the notification say WHY it's waiting (needs approval vs finished vs

... When we first launched Murror, the number one feature request was always the same: "Can I talk to the AI?" Users wanted a chatbot. Something they could vent to, ask for advice, get instant feedback from. Every competitor had one. Every investor asked why we didn't. So we built it. The first month looked incredible. Session times tripled. Users came back more often. The engagement charts were exactly what you'd want to show in a board meeting. Then ... ... dropped back down. But the outcomes we actually care about users reporting they feel understood, users resolving recurring worries, users feeling confident enough to have hard conversations in real life those went up. The lesson for us was uncomfortable: sometimes

... build tools. Some of them even deserve to exist. Hey, I'm Habib. I run CoreiBytes , an 11-year-old software company based in Texas. I also build tools on the side. Sometimes for fun. Sometimes

... people try to raise funding before they even begin. And then sometimes I read those zero to hero stories. (Maybe they re a bit "polished" by the media to have publicity.) In any case, building products has become much easier from a technical perspective, which also makes it cheaper especially for software startups. In many cases, all you really need is ChatGPT or another AI model ( $20 ), a domain (starting around $10 ), some DNS or hosting services (sometimes

... work already happens inside Gmail. Customer conversations live in email threads, follow-ups come out of meetings, and next steps are discussed throughout the day across messages, tasks, and calls. The CRM or Kanban board usually gets updated afterward. Sometimes that happens immediately. Sometimes

... everyone I ve been continuing to explore the question: How do we use AI without outsourcing our thinking? One thing I ve started noticing in my own workflow is that not all AI usage feels the same. Sometimes AI helps me think more clearly. Sometimes

... slows resolution Long message chains before understanding. Recordings are time-consuming and still misses clarity Tool juggling overload scattered workflow. Threads get lost, important messages disappear in chat history. Peoples don't hate collaborations but hate long unnecessary meetings. "Sometimes you don t need a long meeting just both people seeing the same thing live." Quick Demo 1 : Quick Demo 2 : "Because sometimes

... someone who enjoys figuring things out especially when it comes to tech, building ideas, and understanding how things actually work behind the scenes. Most of my time goes into learning, experimenting, and trying to turn ideas into something real. Sometimes that means building websites, sometimes

... text. Even the general structure doesn't tell you much, at least for articles where humans were pushed into the same handful of SEO-friendly templates before generative AI became widespread. Comment from Fabrizio Pfannl(@fabriziowexare): Honest answer: AI-vs-human detection is mostly broken now. What still works is detecting whether a piece of writing was edited by someone with an opinion versus

... always been on the personal brand side. More and more founders are building it now (sometimes even before the product is ready while it's still in development, before seed fundraising). The CEO builds their position so the product sells more easily at the official launch. But I have experience with people who built the product, scaled it, and only then did we discover who was behind it. Honestly, with the first approach, I'd be concerned that people invest ... ... personal brand for promoting, or not? Comment from YekSoon Lok(@ys_askodin): Having operated on both sides of the table as an allocator and a founder, I view this through a different lens. The binary of "personal brand vs